The best GHC players are being beaten easly, even when they have a better then historical 1941.

This is why I was disappointed to not see the return game between you and MT.

M60 has far more exp then me I am a newbie as far as SHC goes 1 game. M60 should not have any problem at all. His not to hot at blizzard O as SHC, but he doen't need to have a 20 + division winter to win.

Its is easy to play SHC, just run in south defend Moscow with a 70 mile thick fort belt. Build up forses and drive west ect ect.

With respect to this particular game I offer the following comments to all of the above:

1. I agree with M60A3TTS that this game is not decided yet. I may have the upperhand at the moment, but this game has gone back and forth with respect to who is "winning" several times already. Maybe Saper has little experience beyond 1941, but then again so do I. It is a long way to Berlin.

2. If I do go on to win this game I do not think my Blizzard Offensive will even be close to being the main reason why I won or even why Saper is, so far, unable to make too much headway in Summer 42. Actually I don't think my Blizzard Offensive was particularly effective. I didn't even liberate Stalino.

3. The main reasons I would cite for my success to date in the summer of 42 are:

a) Preserving the Soviet Army in the summer of 41 even though it cost me ground and factories.

b) Lucky random weather rolls, which gave me mud in each zone when I needed it most.

c) Halting my Blizzard Offensive in time to allow me to dig in and rebuild the Soviet Army.

d) Saper not remiaing in contact with my army during the Spring mud turns thus limiting my attrition losses. True it also limited his attrition losses, but I believe the Russians lose far more than the Germans, especially if he stayed in contact with just regiments.

e) No attacks made by Saper during the February (in the South) and March snow turns.

f) Saper spreading out his 42 Offensive.

g) Saper not using airsupply to refuel his mobile forces in 42 like he did in 41. If he had a few more fueled up units each turn it would make me a little more nervous about defending forward like I am; and of course,

h) My brilliant play:)

With respect to game balance in general I agree that it favors the Soviets. As both MT and Pelton have repeatedly pointed out so long as the Soviet player carefully preserves his army in 1941 he will probably win most games (well actually I think Pelton and MT woudl say every game). This is normally accomplished by running whenever threatend by encirclement. However, achieving this against a player of Saper's ability is not easy. If we were playing a non-random weather game (or even if I hadn't gotten so lucky with the Random weather) I doubt I would be "winning" this game at the moment. And don't forget that Saper has developed some new Strategy with which he has won or is winning 3 more games since ours started.

But even though the game is unbalanced I am not in favour of balancing it by further handicapping the Russian Blizzard Offensive. Historically the Russians did make huge advances, particularly in the South. But even if the Blizzard Offensive is a "fantasy" I would not be in favour of modifying it unless all the pro-German "fantasies" were modified too. Such as the Lvov Opening (or at least the Extended Lvov Opening) and the too low Russian Manpower numbers.

I personally think the main reason the game is unbalanced is because competent Russian players are unlikely to make the same glaring errors as their historical counterparts. Put another way, if we were to search heaven and hell and force all the major participants of the War in the East (Generals all the way up to Hitler and Stalin resepectively) to refight the War (with full knowledge of the real war and the abilty to change their historical decisions) what do you think the result would be? Myself I think that the Russians would be marching into Berlin before the end of 44. The fact that the Germans are generally not going on a rampage in 42 like they did historically just proves to me that the Designers got it right. Just because it happened that way historically does not mean that it was the "probable result". To bad we can't examine the results in 100 different alternate universes to determine what the probable result actually is (Hmmm... maybe Pelton is right about this "fantasy" thing).

So for me if you want to restore game balance just change the Victory Conditions. However, I recognize that this would not be popular with most players. Who would want to play the Germans if they don't always (or at least almost always)get to be in full Offensive mode in the summer of 42? So I would accept as an alternative the establishment of victory conditions for players holding certain locations throughout the game. Don't like it, but I would accept it.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana I personally think the main reason the game is unbalanced is because competent Russian players are unlikely to make the same glaring errors as their historical counterparts. Put another way, if we were to search heaven and hell and force all the major participants of the War in the East (Generals all the way up to Hitler and Stalin resepectively) to refight the War (with full knowledge of the real war and the abilty to change their historical decisions) what do you think the result would be? Myself I think that the Russians would be marching into Berlin before the end of 44.

This is precisely correct which is why I've said from the start that the early war incompetence of the Soviet leadership has to be programed into the game.If it isn't then what you get is what we've got now between equal players.The Axis invade, have a great time for six months and then go 'Oh no this was such a bad idea' and go home, i.e. give up. It might be a good simulation of what would have happened had the Soviet leadership been up to scratch in 41/42 but most Axis players aren't going to hang around long enough for you to find out.

Edit.I'll answer this response from Jahn here to avoid clogging up this AAR too much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: janh Catch 22 is that then justly the Soviet players will also ask to be allowed their "improvement" for 43-45, if in 41-42 they have to follow their mistakes. Their improvement would also be strongly based on Axis mistakes, so Feste Plätze and Stalingrad like "no withdrawls" would have to be a part of that? Would you want that, or prefer to pick an opponent who would be happy to agree to play along historical doctrine and guidelines, as far as this doesn't break the game (like Axis not slowly withdrawing at least a bit in the open areas during blizzard, while the Russian site exploits this; or the Axis sides exploiting the lack of Soviet historical reinforcements in 41 while the Soviet player tries to repeat historical mistakes, and fights for pretty much every yard and counterattacks foolishly). It rather think that would be for house-rules, since there is only so much you can do to try go negate hindsight. And you might easily turn a game into a "recreation movie" of history, which is probably better left for Hollywood?

I don't want to recreate specific mistakes that either side made, but I do want to simulate the institutional weakness within the Red Army leadership during 41 and 42 that was (in my opinion) the main reason for the early disasters.I'm certain that Hitler sensed this weakness, which was possibly why he risked invading at all. Exactly how you simulate weak leadership in a game is one for the experts I suspect. I'll say again, if you don't allow for a meaningful 42 Axis offensive then the game becomes dull for both sides and will put a lot of Axis players off playing at all, either that or they'll play through Barbarossa and then disappear.

But atleast make the game reflect history when it comes to the men on the ground. The Germans were simply 3 to 5 times better then the russians. Because of trianing, command and control at the company lvl and being on the defesive ect ect. Sure the russians were brave ect ect, but the facts are the facts. The game should be based on history and not PC bs.

The combat losses are 75% based on who retreats, thats just plain ******. The attacker almost always takes hvyer loses when they win in WW2.

The combat engine is more reflective of WW 1 and not mordern warfare.

The combat engine ***** thats why the game is screwed up no matter what they tweak end of story.

2by3 has been screwing around for 2 yrs and the game still ***** from 42 to 45. Granted 1942 is better, but still no wheres near right.

They plan on using the same engine in witw? Based on who retreats? Thats simply not how it works.

The russians and some times the germans took 3 to 1, 5 to1 8 to 1 loses and won battles. The attacker almost always lost more men even on the Western front.

The current combat engine, the attacker almost always loses less, from Dec 41 - 45.

That is simply not the historical case.

So the game will never be "playable" until the combat engine reflects WW2 combat and not I win the CV battle you retreat and take more loses.

I agree with most of what you say Pelton. If the Attacker's combat losses were increased along with the Soviet's it would slow down both the initial German invasion, the Blizzard and the Soviet Offensive from 42 or 43 on. Still the best WWII strategy gaem ever.

Still best Eastern front game out there and with a few simple tweaks it be close to perfect.

Most of the wasted time tring to tweak the game in first plase was because of fuel exploits, things that were not by design.

Finally after 1.5 years the logistic system as far as fuel goes is right.

Now things can be tweaked based what I beleive they hoped to be designing in the first plase.

They are putting allot of time into logistics and the air war for witw/wite2, but the combat engine is the central issue and has always been the centeral design issue of wite.

witp historically was based around logistics and the game reflects that, but the war in Europe was about the Germans taking so much with so little, with so few, in so little time with mostly out classed equipeent. Germany was able to attack when out numbered/out gunned and yet easly win while taking less loses.

While the allies needed more equipment/men/time and took far more losses to take back what was lost.

Blah blah blah we all know they lost.

The combat engine needs to reflect history and not be about PC.

I think the Russians should have the 150-200 missing divisions, but the combat engine is so far off and Russians so over rated the game can't handle the historical data.

Thats why the game just plain doesn't feel right to so many players.

witp feels right and the players are super loyal to the game, because it reflects history and feels right. Not because it is PC, but because it is reflective of the historical data.

The combat engine needs to reflect the massive losses that russia was taking during 42/43/44. Not because of pockets but because of the straight up combat. It simply doesn't thats why the game simply doesn't feel/play right and many poeple feel it is so far out of balance.

wite is a massive game and simply was not play tested enough to work out the massive number of exploits. 2by3 had to spend 1.5 yrs removing them and now is finally looking at whats right or wrong with the game.

At the center is the combat lose ratio of each battle, which has never been right from the start.

One thing that was patched in to slow down Germans was to make them take much heavyer loses from movement. 2by3 had no idea of all the fuel exploits being used so to stop whatever was going on upped GHC equipemt losses when moving.

Why has this not been tweaked back to where it was?

GHC forses historically recovered vechiles better then anyone. If russian tanks broke down they simply left it behind in many cases, because they did not have the logistical support.

ORIGINAL: Harrybanana With respect to this particular game I offer the following comments to all of the above:

1. I agree with M60A3TTS that this game is not decided yet. I may have the upperhand at the moment, but this game has gone back and forth with respect to who is "winning" several times already. Maybe Saper has little experience beyond 1941, but then again so do I. It is a long way to Berlin.

2. If I do go on to win this game I do not think my Blizzard Offensive will even be close to being the main reason why I won or even why Saper is, so far, unable to make too much headway in Summer 42. Actually I don't think my Blizzard Offensive was particularly effective. I didn't even liberate Stalino.

3. The main reasons I would cite for my success to date in the summer of 42 are:

a) Preserving the Soviet Army in the summer of 41 even though it cost me ground and factories.

b) Lucky random weather rolls, which gave me mud in each zone when I needed it most.

c) Halting my Blizzard Offensive in time to allow me to dig in and rebuild the Soviet Army.

d) Saper not remiaing in contact with my army during the Spring mud turns thus limiting my attrition losses. True it also limited his attrition losses, but I believe the Russians lose far more than the Germans, especially if he stayed in contact with just regiments.

e) No attacks made by Saper during the February (in the South) and March snow turns.

f) Saper spreading out his 42 Offensive.

g) Saper not using airsupply to refuel his mobile forces in 42 like he did in 41. If he had a few more fueled up units each turn it would make me a little more nervous about defending forward like I am; and of course,

h) My brilliant play:)

With respect to game balance in general I agree that it favors the Soviets. As both MT and Pelton have repeatedly pointed out so long as the Soviet player carefully preserves his army in 1941 he will probably win most games (well actually I think Pelton and MT woudl say every game). This is normally accomplished by running whenever threatend by encirclement. However, achieving this against a player of Saper's ability is not easy. If we were playing a non-random weather game (or even if I hadn't gotten so lucky with the Random weather) I doubt I would be "winning" this game at the moment. And don't forget that Saper has developed some new Strategy with which he has won or is winning 3 more games since ours started.

But even though the game is unbalanced I am not in favour of balancing it by further handicapping the Russian Blizzard Offensive. Historically the Russians did make huge advances, particularly in the South. But even if the Blizzard Offensive is a "fantasy" I would not be in favour of modifying it unless all the pro-German "fantasies" were modified too. Such as the Lvov Opening (or at least the Extended Lvov Opening) and the too low Russian Manpower numbers.

I personally think the main reason the game is unbalanced is because competent Russian players are unlikely to make the same glaring errors as their historical counterparts. Put another way, if we were to search heaven and hell and force all the major participants of the War in the East (Generals all the way up to Hitler and Stalin resepectively) to refight the War (with full knowledge of the real war and the abilty to change their historical decisions) what do you think the result would be? Myself I think that the Russians would be marching into Berlin before the end of 44. The fact that the Germans are generally not going on a rampage in 42 like they did historically just proves to me that the Designers got it right. Just because it happened that way historically does not mean that it was the "probable result". To bad we can't examine the results in 100 different alternate universes to determine what the probable result actually is (Hmmm... maybe Pelton is right about this "fantasy" thing).

So for me if you want to restore game balance just change the Victory Conditions. However, I recognize that this would not be popular with most players. Who would want to play the Germans if they don't always (or at least almost always)get to be in full Offensive mode in the summer of 42? So I would accept as an alternative the establishment of victory conditions for players holding certain locations throughout the game. Don't like it, but I would accept it.

+1 Fully agree. Very nicely argued!

The game is "not balanced", but this is not supposed to be chess. If one wants a fair contest, this struggle is surely not the one of choice. The question ought to be more whether the game is "sufficiently unbalanced" versus "exaggeratedly unbalanced".

I hope for WitE2, the blizzard penalties will make way for combat and supply modifiers based on true logistic management and weather effects, i.e. a random blizzard turn in Novemer should be the same as the first one in December etc. That then also requires to adjust the other points you mentioned to more realistic accuracy, aka the chances of the Lvov (or the lacks of the passive I-Go-U-Go phasing, defensive reactions), and the Soviet manpower issue that seems to have been tuned down a little too much by now.

Lastly, it seems judging the balance depends much on judging the skill of players, and that I find (near) impossible to do reliably. At least I wouldn't bet on any outcome anymore. See how Sapper suddenly struggles, how Pelton ran into issues and how Terje turned around a game that looked like it would end in May 1944 in Berlin, but now likely ends in May 1944 in Gorky... Clearly it helps a lot to use hindsight, but for both sides. Don't repeat the Russians mistakes, and you logically must do better -- else something would be out of whack. Don't repeat the German mistakes, save your Army at SG, and implement the lessons learned from history, and also that should improve chances. If both sides do so, which one profits more? Which side made the bigger mistakes?

Perhaps more important: Random effects -- they have a strong impact in this game, and can favor both sides, like the weather, or the attrition of tanks etc, which is seen to vary widely in the games if you take note of it. It is hard to establish "a balance judgement" from so few data points with so widely varying parameters and random effects. It is much easier to compare raw numbers and add up what the Russian reinforcements are here, and what contemporary documents put them at, errors or not.

Perhaps one needs to differentiate a bit more, i.e. look at the two critical game phases, the opening until say blizzard, and the major Soviet offensive phase starting by mid-43 plus minus some. It won't help if the overall balance of the game is strongly in Soviet favor for the 4 year period, if in 1941 the "local" balance is so strongly in Axis favor, that his survival depends more on Axis player mistakes than his own skill. The overall balance is probably meaningless since there are victory criteria considered at various phases/times in game, and the dynamics of the game changes to much between these phases. After all, I assume no one wants a "likely 41 Axis wins" card and only few games make it to an interesting Russian offensive phase that leads anywhere closer to Berlin but boredom? Nor does one want a game in which the 41/42 successes of Axis isn't reflected by the Red Army... Tricky thing!?

I think they need to take a look at the reinforcement and withdrawal as well as German production mechanisms, which could help to create a dynamic that would be both more plausible, and more dynamic/interesting for both players. Presently, Russian units are returning and costing numbers that are derived from the typical historical 1941 scenario, and German withdrawals/reinforcements, or production rates/allocations are based on that same thing. Makes sense for an game that would be designed to always play out very closely to history, but not here. Naturally, a Soviet Army that runs and follows Napoleons or Clausewitz lessons and simple military principles, preserves its forces, will still get reinforcements as if "averagely slaughtered". I'd rather have Russian mobilization be slower if losses are lower, and thus, "apparent need" be less. Same way I'd increase their # of free shells or AP points if the losses were worse. And same for the German side, if the struggle is getting easy for 42 because 41 was really good, there should be more withdrawals and production could be slower in expanding. Fixing one part, while the other varies widely, can only cause issues.

ORIGINAL: timmyab This is precisely correct which is why I've said from the start that the early war incompetence of the Soviet leadership has to be programed into the game.If it isn't then what you get is what we've got now between equal players.The Axis invade, have a great time for six months and then go 'Oh no this was such a bad idea' and go home, i.e. give up. It might be a good simulation of what would have happened had the Soviet leadership been up to scratch in 41/42 but most Axis players aren't going to hang around long enough for you to find out.

Catch 22 is that then justly the Soviet players will also ask to be allowed their "improvement" for 43-45, if in 41-42 they have to follow their mistakes. Their improvement would also be strongly based on Axis mistakes, so Feste Plätze and Stalingrad like "no withdrawls" would have to be a part of that? Would you want that, or prefer to pick an opponent who would be happy to agree to play along historical doctrine and guidelines, as far as this doesn't break the game (like Axis not slowly withdrawing at least a bit in the open areas during blizzard, while the Russian site exploits this; or the Axis sides exploiting the lack of Soviet historical reinforcements in 41 while the Soviet player tries to repeat historical mistakes, and fights for pretty much every yard and counterattacks foolishly). It rather think that would be for house-rules, since there is only so much you can do to try go negate hindsight. And you might easily turn a game into a "recreation movie" of history, which is probably better left for Hollywood?

Saper's next turn has been received. I see he has recently posted and has probably shown how he is on the verge of isolating several more of my units. In hindsite I probably should have retreated out of the bulge which any idiot could see was being formed. But someone posted that the game was no longer interesting so I figured a few Russian blunders might spice it up. Anyway, I'll have to see if I can figure a way out of this mess.

Only game that has me genuinely concerned about Axis balance in 42 is Kamil's, not this one or any of the others. Kamil is just falling to pieces there and I'm really not quite sure why.

Hes playing one of the dozen or so undefeated SHC, not to hard to figure that out. Many where undefeated before all the fuel nerfs, now its a cake walk. Just because HB has lost what 6 divisions and 2 Corp in 4 turns of spring clear and 4 turns of summer. Thats not and offensive even in snow. who are we kidding.

SHC needs to simply keep the OOB ratio at 2 to 1. Its doesn't matter if it 2.5 million vs 5 million or 4 million vs 8 million.

Kamils game is the normal result vs SHC players like yourself/Katza/Bomazz/MT/Hoooper ect ect.

SHC is driving west in the summer of 42. Nothing to genuinely be concerned over standard results of the elite SHC.

Just the standard result.

You acted shocked when none of these guys have yet to get to 43 hhehehe

During 4 turns the Axis have lost 5000 guns, 1500 AFV and 125k men KIA. All these categories shows a decrease in effective numbers. During the same time, the Soviets number in guns and total men holds roughly steady - AFV numbers decrease, but the new T34 model change means that 2 new factories comes on line.

Long term, I do consider Axis guns lost to be the most significant. AFV losses will impact the offensive capability for the rest of '42, but there will be new AFV models with increased production later on. The gun losses are permanent!

The numbers aspect still shows a situation that qualifies for the 'not interesting' label in the sense that you would have to make multiple major mistakes to be in any kind of trouble. Locally, there could be some excitement but that you would lose more than ½M men I think unlikely and that is how large a margin you have.

BTW, DR SS Mot withdrew T54 and 22nd AL in T55. Know thy enemy, i.e. check the Axis OOB. At this time, there are ~140 German ID - if you know where they are, you can also know where they cannot be. The mech div's tend to make themselves visible, so to say.

EDIT: Saper does not have any problems with getting his manpower to his units, he even stated as much in the bug thread. Something is going on under the hood in the engine, and he seems to have found a work around.

We shouldn't have to contrive expedients to push manpower forward. I am very sympathetic to Kamil about this. Near as I can tell the entire Wehrmacht is falling apart and he's sitting on hundreds of thousands of men that refuse to reinforce his scarecrow divisions as they wither on the vine. It's preposterous.

I agree with that the current state of the replacement routines in the game engine is non-acceptable. A possible way forward with the investigations would be for the devs to:

Get a copy of saper's turn in this game Check which SU he has disbanded (early in the game if I understand him correct) Use the turn from Pelton's game that he bugged. Run two versions, 1. Pelton as is and 2. Pelton where the SU identified above are first disbanded. If 2 shows improvement to 1 it should be possible to identify the clogs in the pipe.

Naturally, asking saper to say how he noticed the clog and created a w/a is also possible.

Its an exploit and what Sapper is doing has nothing to do with it or me or Kamil.

The SHC simply drives in a few areas and the front line troops retreating/lossing morale/lossing trucks ect recieve no replasements. They are in contact with front,ZOC.

The system has a HUGE effect on GHC and zero on SHC. The SHC units that win a battle can't advance into the hex taken so they are off line and get replasements. Some 2nd line trroops advance into the hex taken.

The next turn the 2nd line troops rotate to front and attack again. GHC loses more morale/trucks/guns ect ect and recieve zero replasements.

Its so simple and how 2by3 could not see that exploit coming from 10000000 mile away I have no idea, but they could not see the fuel exploit for 18 months so that kinda of explains it.

Also gingerbread the losses of guns by GHC is because of retreat losses and poor SU managment by GHC.

The combat engine is 75% based on retreat loses, not combat during the combat phases. Thats why it is not reflective of mordern day warfare.

The new replasement system is a russian fanboys dream come true. It is another GHC beat down for no reason what so ever.

For him to have everything set at 100% and have 400k men in pools something is really screwed up.

Even exploiting the pos replasement system will not drive that many men into the pool. The exploit drives replasements to units in areas that really dont need the replasements. AS GHC you can not push replasements to where they are needed, they go to dead areas of front. As long as SHC keeps pressure in 3 areas they can exploit the usless replasement system.

Once those units are "full" then the replasements have no plase to go, so they start backing up in the pool. Even though there mybee 30 to 40 GHC units that are at 50% toe.

Hooopers the best at exploiting the atrition side of the game, always has been. With this red fanboy replasement system its making it a piece of cake for him. Game set match 1943.

T56: Since Saper has called off his all infantry assaults East Of Moscow and in the South, the action is now concentrated in just two areas. One is in the area roughly between Tula/Orel and Voronezh, where most of his mobile forces are located. The other is between Boguchar and Voroshilovgrad where he has about 10 mobile units.

A screenshot of the Tula/Orel to Voronezh Area from before my turn is shown below. As you can see Saper is on the verge of isolating several of my units.

Now the same Area after my turn. As you can see I tried and failed to open up a corridor wide enough for most of my trapped units to escape out of. The hex circled in red is the site of the failed crucial attack. In hindsight I should have just got away with the few units that could escape rather than wasting their movement in the failed attack.

Things went a lot better in the South. Although saving my isolated units was impossible I did once again inflict major damage on Saper's mobile forces. On my turn alone I destroyed 450 Axis AFVs. Below is the screenshot from before my turn.